[Advaita-l] DSV in the advaitasiddhi: adhyAsa is substantiated

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkatraghavanji,

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I spoke with Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal yesterday - it was quite subtle, so
> it did take some time for me to understand the import of what he was
> saying.
>
> ​Thanks for all your effort and sharing the same elaborately.​



> I will cover his response here, and if you still feel there are
> outstanding points you'd like to discuss from your previous email, I'd be
> glad to to do that.
>
​I think all questions stand answered, at least from my perspective.
Overall, my inclination has always been not to mix SDV and DSV and I see
Shastriji endorsing the same thing.​ Anandji had also mentioned this point
earlier on. However, the technicalities you brought up were very helpful
manana for both vAda followers.

2) Within the definition of prAtibhAsikatvam in DSV itself, there is scope
> for a prAtibhAsikatva and vyAvahArikatva. Meaning, that while all objects
> are prAtibhAsikatva, people may not know that and still think that there is
> a vyAvahArikatva and prAtibhAsikatva. Thus, DSV is not saying that objects
> appear as being prAtibhAsikam, they simply are.
>


> 5) Therefore our original question - isn't there a category called
> vyAvahArikatvam that is based on brahma pramA atirikta abAdhyatvam, and
> such an abAdhyatvam is present in DSV because ajnAna nivritti is absent, is
> similar to the person in 4 - he knows there is a prAtibhAsikam, but he
> believes that what he is seeing is vyAvahArikam. In reality, such a
> vyAvahArikatvam does not exist in DSV, but vyAvahArika vyavahAra can.
>

The above two are brilliant points. In Mandukya 4th chapter, even while
refuting hetu-hetumat or any other sambandha between the ​jAgrat-prapancha
seen and svapna-prapancha, Karikakara mentions something similar: with the
difference in appearance between the two, although there is none, we
provisionally give a certain transactional reality to it.
​

> I'm not sure if others will like this answer, but I must say that it is a
> very satisfying explanation, even if it takes a bit of effort (at least for
> me it did) to understand both the question and the answer.
>
It was indeed satisfying, more so to learn of Shastriji's use of required
techniques without biases. ​Karikakara uses a similar technique of
Vijnanavadins to dimiss other Buddhists and builds over it by negating them
using the same. I'm glad that Shastriji was accessible for this
clarification.​ Thanks again to both of you.

g
​urupAdukAbhyAm​
,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

>